Hat tip to the Exile and the comrades at AVPS for bringing this to my attention. This is a time when all bloggers should stick together in solidarity regardless of what we think of the views expressed on this site. This has big implications for all blogers.
Harrys Place has been temporarily set up home here. ModernityBlog have been covering things in detail here.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Quick Strike/Labour movement round up.
Just been going through the news and seems the simmering discontent amongst the working class continues.
Bus drivers, Air Port Workers, and Coast Guards show their devotion to Queen and Country.
Interesting report on the mistreatment of Vulnerable staff here.
According to the ToryGraph Unite the Union are demanding change at the top of the Labour Party.They can start by cutting the money. £11 million could be better spent on organising!!
It would help greatly if comrades like Steve Turner are listened to about Public Ownership of the airports.
Orgreave is being buried here.
Inner city issues still remain after 11 years of Labour Government. Black youth especially have a raw deal. The governments policies towards youth has failed.
On a plus side. A little bit of Politics was injected into Reading Rock festival. Glad to see RATM back in action.
Bus drivers, Air Port Workers, and Coast Guards show their devotion to Queen and Country.
Interesting report on the mistreatment of Vulnerable staff here.
According to the ToryGraph Unite the Union are demanding change at the top of the Labour Party.They can start by cutting the money. £11 million could be better spent on organising!!
It would help greatly if comrades like Steve Turner are listened to about Public Ownership of the airports.
Orgreave is being buried here.
Inner city issues still remain after 11 years of Labour Government. Black youth especially have a raw deal. The governments policies towards youth has failed.
On a plus side. A little bit of Politics was injected into Reading Rock festival. Glad to see RATM back in action.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Migrant Labour leaving
Article in the Observer today.
This will create an interesting dilema for many employers especially in Agriculture and in services, two areas that have greatly benefited with the huge pool of labour that came over from eastern europe.
With the effects of the credit crunch tightening the screw there is talk of recession amongst leading economists and businessmen. The dreaded spectre of unemployment looms but the jobs in the above sectors still need to be done. Employers lament the unreliability of local labour yet will find these jobs filled quickly when factories start closing. Unfortunately these industries in turn will suffer due to fall in demand and start turning people away as the economy bites.
How will our politicians account for and resolve all this ? Of course they will explain to us its all part of being in a global economy and will demand further flexibilities of the local workforce to get out of the rut. Well here is a suggestion. Maybe instead of being unemployed how about working for no money as an option ? Maybe this is where we went wrong in the past because of course we have rich and innovative employers to thank for creating wealth in the first place !
You know what, I bet some employers and politicians actually subscribe to this view!!
Who will the bigots pick on now the Eastern Europeans are leaving ? Well there are still chavs, incapacity benefit claimants and asylum seekers in order to keep the readerships of the Sun, Daily Mail and Express happy. Anything but have a go at the rich who got us into this mess in the first place by their uncontrolable greed.
This will create an interesting dilema for many employers especially in Agriculture and in services, two areas that have greatly benefited with the huge pool of labour that came over from eastern europe.
With the effects of the credit crunch tightening the screw there is talk of recession amongst leading economists and businessmen. The dreaded spectre of unemployment looms but the jobs in the above sectors still need to be done. Employers lament the unreliability of local labour yet will find these jobs filled quickly when factories start closing. Unfortunately these industries in turn will suffer due to fall in demand and start turning people away as the economy bites.
How will our politicians account for and resolve all this ? Of course they will explain to us its all part of being in a global economy and will demand further flexibilities of the local workforce to get out of the rut. Well here is a suggestion. Maybe instead of being unemployed how about working for no money as an option ? Maybe this is where we went wrong in the past because of course we have rich and innovative employers to thank for creating wealth in the first place !
You know what, I bet some employers and politicians actually subscribe to this view!!
Who will the bigots pick on now the Eastern Europeans are leaving ? Well there are still chavs, incapacity benefit claimants and asylum seekers in order to keep the readerships of the Sun, Daily Mail and Express happy. Anything but have a go at the rich who got us into this mess in the first place by their uncontrolable greed.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Olympic success due to Private Education
I was wondering when the Mail would slip this one in. Simple straight forward Tory propoganda.
Translated this surely means that only middle England can save us now from the perils of International Communism doesnt it?
Translated this surely means that only middle England can save us now from the perils of International Communism doesnt it?
Russian Ambassador to Nato responds
This statement I received by email today speaks for itself.
Washington's Hypocrisy By Dmitry Rogozin, Russia`s Ambassador to NATO18/08/08 'IHT' --
The U.S. administration is trying to stick the label of 'bad guy' on Russia for exceeding the peacekeeping mandate and using 'disproportionate force' in the peace-enforcement operation in Georgia.Maybe our American friends have gone blind and deaf at the same time. Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, is known as a tough nationalist who didn't hide his intentions of forcing Ossetians and Abkhazians to live in his country.
We were hoping that the U.S. administration, which had displayed so much kindness and touching care for the Georgian leader, would be able to save him from the maniacal desire to deal with the small and disobedient peoples of the Caucasus.But a terrible thing happened. The dog bit its master. Saakashvili gave an order to wipe Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, from the face of earth.The Georgian air force and artillery struck the sleeping town at midnight. More than 1,500 civilians perished in the very first hours of the shelling.
At the same time, Georgian special forces shot 10 Russian peacekeepers who didn't expect such a betrayal from their Georgian colleagues.The Kremlin attempted to reach Saakashvili, who was hiding, by phone. All this time the Russian Joint Staff forbid the surviving peacekeepers to open return fire. Finally our patience was exhausted. The Russian forces came to help Tskhinvali and its civilian population.
In reply to the insulting criticism by President Bush that Russia used 'disproportionate force,' I'd like to cite some legal grounds for our response. Can shooting peacekeepers and the mass extermination of a civilian population - mainly Russian citizens - be regarded as hostile action against a state? Is it ground enough to use armed force in self-defense and to safeguard the security of these citizens?Tbilisi concealed the scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in South Ossetia. Saakashvili' s constant lies about the true state of affairs in Georgia were attempts to lay the fault at somebody else's door.
The Russian response is entirely justified and is consistent with both international law and the humanitarian goals of the peacekeeping operation conducted in South Ossetia. I will try to explain.The Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, which came as a straightforward, wide-scale attack on the Russian peacekeeping contingent - Russian armed forces legally based on the territory of Georgia - should be classified as an armed attack on the Russian Federation, giving grounds to fulfill the right to self-defense - the right of every state according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.
As for the defense of our citizens outside the country, the use of force to defend one's compatriots is traditionally regarded as a form of self-defense. Countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Israel have at numerous times resorted to the use of armed force to defend their citizens outside national borders.Such incidents include the armed operation of Belgian paratroopers in 1965 to defend 2,000 foreigners in Zaire; the U.S. military intervention in Grenada in 1983 under the pretext of protecting thousands of American nationals, who found themselves in danger due to a coup d'êtat in this island state; the sending of American troops to Panama in 1989 to defend, among others, American nationals.We also have to keep in mind the present-day military interventions by the U.S. and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
By the way, the last three cases are examples of tough American interventions when its own citizens did not need direct protection. But in spite of those countries' massive civilian losses at the hands of American soldiers, no one blamed Washington for a 'disproportionate use of force.'
Of course, the history of international relations is full of abuses committed under the pretext of defending citizens.In order to draw a clear line between lawful and unlawful use of force, one can single out a number of objective criteria: first, the existence of a real threat to life or systematic and violations of human rights; second, the absence of other, peaceful means of resolving the conflict; third, a humanitarian aim for an armed operation; and four, proportionality - i.e., limitation on the time and means of rescue.Russia's actions were in full compliance with these criteria.
In conducting its military action, Russian troops also strictly observed the requirements of international humanitarian law. The Russian military did not subject civil objects and civilians on the territory of Georgia to deliberate attacks.It is hard to believe that in such a situation any other country would have remained idle.
Let me quote two statements:
One: 'We are against cruelty. We are against ethnic cleansing. A right to come back home should be guaranteed to the refugees. We all agree that murders, property destruction, annihilation of culture and religion are not to be tolerated. That is what we are fighting against. Bombardments of the aggressor will be mercilessly intensified.
'Two: 'We appeal to all free countries to join us but our actions are not determined by others. I will defend the freedom and security of my citizens, whatever actions are needed for it. Our special forces have seized airports and bridges... air forces and missiles have struck essential targets.'Who do you think is the author of these words? Medvedev? Putin? No. The first quote belongs to Bill Clinton, talking about NATO operation against Yugoslavia. The author of the second quote is the current resident of the White House, talking about the U.S. intervention in Iraq.Does that mean that the United States and NATO can use brute force where they want to, and Russia has to abstain from it even if it has to look at thousands of its own citizens being shot? If it's not hypocrisy, then what IS hypocrisy?
Dmitry Rogozin is Russia's ambassador to NATO.
Will we see a statement by representatives of Nato challenging this ? Maybe Miliband or even Cameron who popped over to Georgia for a holiday can say something in response to Rogozins statement ?
If I can find a response I will post it up. Meanwhile I will continue watching Western leaders living back in some 50s cold war time warp(thus the piccie above!!)
Tories bad for Business ? Where are their policies?
Thought I would start with an anti Tory rant.
As a Socialist I cant see anything worse than the country being governed by the spivs and second hand car salesmen that infest the Conservative Party. While I am the biggest critic of Brown and his cronies I think the opposition is bloody worse in many ways. Not least for their distinct lack of policy. Where better to see this than in the following article in the Financial Times from yesterday.
Worryingly, the approval Big Business gives New Labour shows how far the Party is from its core support and its democratic socialist roots. Cameron can share being equally removed from its Thatcherite , pro business foundation.
Companies fear Tory axe on contracts
By Jean Eaglesham, Chief Political Correspondent
Published: August 18 2008 22:06 Last updated: August 18 2008 22:06
Projects worth billions of pounds face revision or cancellation if the Conservatives win the next election, analysis by the FT suggests.
Business leaders have called on David Cameron to fill the “huge void” in some policy areas to mitigate the political uncertainty affecting companies in the run-up to the general election.
The potential substance of the Conservative manifesto is coming under increasing scrutiny from business, as companies draw up contingency plans for a likely change in government in less than two years. Some businesses are weighing up the cost of preparatory work on contracts that could be axed by a Tory prime minister. Others are looking to opportunities in areas the opposition party has pledged to fund more generously.
But the leading business organisations told the FT their principal concern was the lack of clarity on Conservative thinking in the crucial and interlinked policy areas of transport, energy and planning.
Companies accept there are sound political reasons why Mr Cameron does not want to spell out many policies in detail at this stage – not least the fear Gordon Brown would steal those commitments that he did not immediately deride.
But business warned that Mr Cameron’s recent rhetoric had created damaging uncertainty over the underlying principles a Conservative government would apply. The Tory leader’s decision to cast doubt on whether the proposed third runway at Heathrow could be economically justified is cited as a case in point.
“Looking at the [Tory policies on the] issues facing business – tax and regulation, two ticks there. But on transport, there seems to be a huge void. So the question from business is ‘OK, what are you going to do?’” David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said. “We’re looking for some real idea about what’s going to happen, not just a series of Nos about planning and Nos about Heathrow.”
Business is looking for evidence from Mr Cameron that he is prepared to endorse policies seen as necessary for UK plc but opposed by many voters. One example is the proposed reform of the planning system to allow big infrastructure projects such as nuclear power stations to be fast-tracked. The Tories have supported the principle of speeding up the planning system but opposed proposals for a commission that can decide on big projects without a ministerial veto.
“We want a bold statement [from the Tories] that they are prepared to pursue not always popular but vital infrastructure schemes,” Miles Templeman, director-general of the Institute of Directors, said. “It would be helpful if they spelled out detailed policies as it comes nearer to the election, but at the moment it would be good to get out of them a clear statement of principles.”
The Conservatives say their stance is clear, even if elements of their manifesto remain under wraps. Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, told the FT on Monday: “We’ve made our position very clear on Heathrow – we’ve set out environmental tests we believe have to be met before a responsible government can make a decision and we don’t believe they have been met. . . we’ve not necessarily ruled out a third runway but as of now, the case has not been made.”
On Monday, employers’ groups stressed their support for the Tories’ commitment to the principle of cutting corporate taxes and regulation, contrasting this favourably with Mr Cameron’s rhetoric on “standing up to big business” early in his leadership. Business also emphasised that the political risks it faced were not confined to opposition parties’ policies. Changes in government policy can have a far more immediate and direct impact on companies. EEF, the manufacturers’ group, highlighted as an example potential changes to the guidelines for the £160bn a year spent by the state on goods and services.
Steve Radley, EEF chief economist, said: “Our worry is that public procurement will go in the wrong direction if the government starts loading other objectives on to it, such as equal pay. A more business-friendly approach to procurement from any party would clearly be welcomed.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Next time you see a spotty faced Tory with bad breath guffawing over the problems the government are in remind them of this. Bastards!!
As a Socialist I cant see anything worse than the country being governed by the spivs and second hand car salesmen that infest the Conservative Party. While I am the biggest critic of Brown and his cronies I think the opposition is bloody worse in many ways. Not least for their distinct lack of policy. Where better to see this than in the following article in the Financial Times from yesterday.
Worryingly, the approval Big Business gives New Labour shows how far the Party is from its core support and its democratic socialist roots. Cameron can share being equally removed from its Thatcherite , pro business foundation.
Companies fear Tory axe on contracts
By Jean Eaglesham, Chief Political Correspondent
Published: August 18 2008 22:06 Last updated: August 18 2008 22:06
Projects worth billions of pounds face revision or cancellation if the Conservatives win the next election, analysis by the FT suggests.
Business leaders have called on David Cameron to fill the “huge void” in some policy areas to mitigate the political uncertainty affecting companies in the run-up to the general election.
The potential substance of the Conservative manifesto is coming under increasing scrutiny from business, as companies draw up contingency plans for a likely change in government in less than two years. Some businesses are weighing up the cost of preparatory work on contracts that could be axed by a Tory prime minister. Others are looking to opportunities in areas the opposition party has pledged to fund more generously.
But the leading business organisations told the FT their principal concern was the lack of clarity on Conservative thinking in the crucial and interlinked policy areas of transport, energy and planning.
Companies accept there are sound political reasons why Mr Cameron does not want to spell out many policies in detail at this stage – not least the fear Gordon Brown would steal those commitments that he did not immediately deride.
But business warned that Mr Cameron’s recent rhetoric had created damaging uncertainty over the underlying principles a Conservative government would apply. The Tory leader’s decision to cast doubt on whether the proposed third runway at Heathrow could be economically justified is cited as a case in point.
“Looking at the [Tory policies on the] issues facing business – tax and regulation, two ticks there. But on transport, there seems to be a huge void. So the question from business is ‘OK, what are you going to do?’” David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said. “We’re looking for some real idea about what’s going to happen, not just a series of Nos about planning and Nos about Heathrow.”
Business is looking for evidence from Mr Cameron that he is prepared to endorse policies seen as necessary for UK plc but opposed by many voters. One example is the proposed reform of the planning system to allow big infrastructure projects such as nuclear power stations to be fast-tracked. The Tories have supported the principle of speeding up the planning system but opposed proposals for a commission that can decide on big projects without a ministerial veto.
“We want a bold statement [from the Tories] that they are prepared to pursue not always popular but vital infrastructure schemes,” Miles Templeman, director-general of the Institute of Directors, said. “It would be helpful if they spelled out detailed policies as it comes nearer to the election, but at the moment it would be good to get out of them a clear statement of principles.”
The Conservatives say their stance is clear, even if elements of their manifesto remain under wraps. Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, told the FT on Monday: “We’ve made our position very clear on Heathrow – we’ve set out environmental tests we believe have to be met before a responsible government can make a decision and we don’t believe they have been met. . . we’ve not necessarily ruled out a third runway but as of now, the case has not been made.”
On Monday, employers’ groups stressed their support for the Tories’ commitment to the principle of cutting corporate taxes and regulation, contrasting this favourably with Mr Cameron’s rhetoric on “standing up to big business” early in his leadership. Business also emphasised that the political risks it faced were not confined to opposition parties’ policies. Changes in government policy can have a far more immediate and direct impact on companies. EEF, the manufacturers’ group, highlighted as an example potential changes to the guidelines for the £160bn a year spent by the state on goods and services.
Steve Radley, EEF chief economist, said: “Our worry is that public procurement will go in the wrong direction if the government starts loading other objectives on to it, such as equal pay. A more business-friendly approach to procurement from any party would clearly be welcomed.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Next time you see a spotty faced Tory with bad breath guffawing over the problems the government are in remind them of this. Bastards!!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Stop the Oppresion of Worker activists/Trade Unionists in Iran
Received the email from Eric Lee
On May Day this year in Iran, two brave women - Sousan Razani andShiva Kheirabadi - participated in open celebrations of theinternational workers' holiday.
The regime considers this to be a crime and the women were arrested.They have just been sentenced to 15 lashes apiece, as well as fourmonths in prison.They're not alone. In a new and ferocious wave of repression directedagainst worker activists, a Kurdish teacher (Farzad Kamangar) has beensentenced to death.
Three men (Abdullah Khani, Seyed Qaleb Hosseini,and Khaled Hosseini) have been sentenced to 120 lashes between them,as well as prison sentences. Afshin Shams has been arrested andawaits trial.Meanwhile, Mansour Osanloo, leader of the Tehran bus workers, haslanguished in jail since July 2007.Enough is enough.
The Iranian regime must now receive a loud and clear message from theinternational labour movement that we have not forgotten our sistersand brothers in Iran. Thousands of us must raise our voices.
You can help send that message by going to LabourStart's new campaignpage here:http://www.labourstart.org/iran
We have also launched a cause on Facebook for those of you using thatsocial network:http://apps.facebook.com/causes/110025
Spread the word – build the campaign. No to whippings and executions!I know that I can count on you.
Eric Lee
On May Day this year in Iran, two brave women - Sousan Razani andShiva Kheirabadi - participated in open celebrations of theinternational workers' holiday.
The regime considers this to be a crime and the women were arrested.They have just been sentenced to 15 lashes apiece, as well as fourmonths in prison.They're not alone. In a new and ferocious wave of repression directedagainst worker activists, a Kurdish teacher (Farzad Kamangar) has beensentenced to death.
Three men (Abdullah Khani, Seyed Qaleb Hosseini,and Khaled Hosseini) have been sentenced to 120 lashes between them,as well as prison sentences. Afshin Shams has been arrested andawaits trial.Meanwhile, Mansour Osanloo, leader of the Tehran bus workers, haslanguished in jail since July 2007.Enough is enough.
The Iranian regime must now receive a loud and clear message from theinternational labour movement that we have not forgotten our sistersand brothers in Iran. Thousands of us must raise our voices.
You can help send that message by going to LabourStart's new campaignpage here:http://www.labourstart.org/iran
We have also launched a cause on Facebook for those of you using thatsocial network:http://apps.facebook.com/causes/110025
Spread the word – build the campaign. No to whippings and executions!I know that I can count on you.
Eric Lee
New BERR site for employers
The Government , correctly in my view, have introduced support for Businesses in dealing with employees. Its not going to stop bad employers ignoring the law (and there are loads of them!!) and doing what is right for their workforce but its there just in case they moan about 'drowning in legislation' etc. No excuses.
It can be found here.
It can be found here.
Chronicle of the Georgian-Ossetian Conflict;
Got sent this chronology by email today. I am sure any inaccuracies will be commented on if people can be arsed. I will blog my opinion regarding the 'conflict' when things settle down a bit.
In Soviet times South Ossetia was an autonomous area within Georgia.
In 1991 Georgia's first president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, abolished the autonomy. The South Ossetian authorities rejected that decision and put up an armed resistance to the Georgians. In January 1991 open warfare broke out between Georgia and South Ossetia claiming heavy casualties on both sides. After the armed conflict, which lasted until 1992, Georgia lost control over the territory and peacekeeping forces were introduced into the conflict zone.
In 1994 talks to settle the conflict began. On May 16, 1996 a memorandum on security and confidence measures between the sides was signed in Moscow. The Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze and South Ossetian President Lyudvig Chibirov had several meetings to discuss ways to end the conflict. Russia was the mediator in the negotiation process.
On December 23, 2000 a Russian-Georgian intergovernmental agreement was signed on interaction and economic reconstruction in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone and on the return of refugees.
In April 2001 a referendum in South Ossetia introduced changes in the republic's constitution. Georgia considers the referendum to be illegal.
On December 22, 2001 the OSCE mission in Georgia and the European Commission signed an agreement on a 210,000 euro grant for measures to settle the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. The European Commission took an active part in collecting and destroying weapons in the conflict zone. The 10th meeting of the parties' official delegations took place as part of the negotiations to settle the Georgian-Ossetian conflict outside The Hague on October 14-17, 2003. Taking part in the consultations were the representatives of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the Dutch co-chairs of the OSCE, the head of the OSCE mission to Georgia and the representatives of the European Commission. For the first time the parties failed to sign a final protocol due to substantive differences over its content.
On May 31, 2004 the commander of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, Svyatoslav Nabdzorov, declared the intention to liquidate the checkpoints the Georgian Interior Ministry had set up along the Gori-Tskhinvali highway ostensibly to stop the transportation of smuggled goods.
On June 1, 2004 the Russian Foreign Ministry made three statements on the situation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. The Russian ministry called on the Georgian authorities to recognize the danger of provocations in the region.
On June 2, 2004, during a meeting of the co-chairmen of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict the Georgian and Ossetian representatives agreed not to use force or economic pressure with regard to each other.
On June 3, 2004 Georgia sent 20 flatcars with tanks and armored vehicles, several Grad rockets and 350 peacekeepers to the Tskhinvali area. Georgia had 150 troops armed with small arms near Tskhinvali. All in all, Georgia can have 500 servicemen with limited quantities of armor in the conflict zone, the country's Defense Ministry said.
On June 28, 2004 three members of the Georgian Security Ministry were detained on suspicion of committing acts of sabotage and terrorism in South Ossetia. Following the incident Georgia refused to attend the meeting of the Joint Control Commission due to be held in Moscow on June 30.
On July 3 the representatives of the Georgian special services were released. Georgia declared that it would continue working with the commission.
On June 30, 2004 Russian peacekeepers were attacked by a Georgian Interior Ministry unit. The Russian Foreign Ministry called on Tbilisi "not to bring the situation in South Ossetia to a danger point." Moscow "has no doubt that the forcible seizure of military property was deliberately aimed at further aggravating the situation in South Ossetia and undermining the Russian-Georgian relations," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. The situation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone took a turn for the worse when an armed clash occurred in the Liakhvi Gorge in South Ossetia. Tbilisi reported that two Georgian peacekeepers were wounded and one kidnapped.
On July 8-9 talks were held in Tskhinvali between Georgian Minister of State Giorgi Khaindrava and Deputy Commander of the Russian Ground Forces Lieutenant General Valery Yevnevich on the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. The two sides discussed measures to stabilize the situation around South Ossetia.
On July 11 a meeting took place in Tskhinvali between the head of the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity and the Russian Foreign Ministry's Special Ambassador Lev Mironov to discuss the preparation and holding of the meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) on the settlement of the situation in South Ossetia. On the same day a working meeting took place in Tskhinvali between the co-chairmen of the JCC with the participation of the South Ossetian Special Ambassador Boris Chochiyev and a representative of the North Ossetian government, Teimuraz Kusov. The parties agreed to stop all provocative actions in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. The conflicting parties pledged to stop the shooting and to lift the economic blockade.
On July 14, 2004 the first round of closed high-level talks in the JCC format was held in Moscow. The parties agreed that illegal armed units had to be withdrawn from the conflict zone. They confirmed the status of the peacekeepers in the conflict zone. The chairman of the Georgian National Security Council, Gela Bezhuashvili, said that the solution of the South Ossetian problem lay in the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity.
On July 15, during the second round of the talks, the members of the JCC meeting signed a final document calling on the leaders of Tbilisi and Tskhinvali not to use force to resolve the conflict. The parties had to honor all the previous agreements. All the illegal armed units were to be disarmed and military vehicles had to be withdrawn from the conflict zone. A separate point in the protocol was devoted to humanitarian aid: the parties reaffirmed that such cargoes were to enjoy a favorable customs regime, as prescribed by the 1992 Dagomys agreements. The sides agreed that the JCC would be a permanent body based in Tskhinvali and that the following meeting would take place in Tbilisi several days later.
At a meeting in Tskhinvali on July 19, 2004 the representatives of Georgia, South Ossetia, North Ossetia and Russia agreed to set up a group of secretaries of the Georgian, South and North Ossetian parts of the JCC; and on July 21, the group and the counselor at the Russian Embassy in Georgia held their first meeting in Tbilisi. Georgia and South Ossetia reaffirmed their commitment to a peaceful settlement in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and to preventing an escalation of tensions. A meeting of the representatives of co-chairs of the JCC in Tskhinvali on July 22 set the deadlines for the start of joint patrolling of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone by peacekeepers and OSCE observers and the routes of the patrols.
On September 30-October 2, 2004 a Joint Control Commission (JCC) meeting in Moscow discussed the prospects of resolving the conflict situation in South Ossetia, preventing future crises and economic rehabilitation of the conflict zone. A working group was set up to prepare decisions on the withdrawal of illegal units, dismantling of illegal checkpoints and the setting up of new checkpoints by peacekeepers.
On November 5, 2004 talks were held in Sochi between Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania and the head of South Ossetia, Eduard Kokoity. They were mediated by the Russian Foreign Ministry represented by First Deputy Foreign Minister Valery Loshchinin. The parties agreed on full demilitarization of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. On November 13 Georgian Minister of State Giorgi Khaindrava and Special Affairs Minister of the Government of South Ossetia Boris Chochiyev agreed to liquidate the dugouts and other military structures.
On November 15 the liquidation of military engineering structures began in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone.
On November 18-19, 2004 a meeting of the JCC in Vladikavkaz reviewed progress in the fulfillment of the Russian-brokered agreements between Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania and the president of the unrecognized Republic of South Ossetia, Eduard Kokoity, reached in Sochi on November 5. President of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania Alexander Dzasokhov, speaking at the JCC meeting, backed the proposal made by Zhvania and Kokoity to form a special economic zone that would include the Alagir District of North Ossetia, South Ossetia and the Gori District of Georgia.
On January 2005 Mikheil Saakashvili announced peace initiatives with regard to South Ossetia at a PACE meeting in Strasbourg. South Ossetia was offered broad autonomy as part of the single Georgian state. President George W. Bush in a telephone conversation on February 15 backed Saakashvili' s initiatives. South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity, commenting on Saakashvili' s initiatives, said that "South Ossetia has long been an independent republic" and there could be no question of creating a common state with Georgia.
On March 11, 2005 Mikheil Saakashvili told a briefing that he would not wait long for Tskhinvali's response to his initiatives on the status of South Ossetia. He noted that some representatives of the Tskhinvali authorities welcomed the Georgian initiatives, but were unable to make a decision. He said the Tskhinvali region and Abkhazia would "never become part of an empire, even of a former empire." "These are our people, our territory called Georgia and it will never be called anything else," Saakashvili said.
On March 16-17, 2005 a meeting of the co-chairs of the Joint Control Commission discussed demilitarization of the conflict zone in the framework of the November 2004 Sochi agreements. Taking part in the meeting were the delegations of Russia, Georgia, North Ossetia-Alania and South Ossetia.
On June 20-21, 2005 an emergency meeting of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict was held in Moscow. The sides were supposed to sign a protocol on the cooperation of the law-enforcement bodies in the conflict zone. However, the protocol signed envisaged only the creation of a group to investigate the incidents in the conflict zone on May 29 and June 6 (the murder of four Ossetian and one Georgian servicemen and the disappearance of four Georgians).
On July 10, 2005 an international conference on the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict was held in Batumi. The representatives of South Ossetia boycotted the conference. During the conference Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili declared that Georgia was ready to grant South Ossetia full autonomy and amend the country's Constitution accordingly. He said that his plan of settlement of the conflict with South Ossetia was a phased one and would take considerable time to implement. He said the plan took into account all the wishes expressed at various stages by the South Ossetian representatives. The unrecognized republic of South Ossetia rejected Saakashvili' s offer of autonomy within Georgia.
On October 11, 2005 the Georgian parliament adopted a resolution "On Peacekeeping Operations and the Situation in the Conflict Zones of Georgia." It required Russian peacekeepers, stationed in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, to enforce both parties' compliance with their agreements before February 1, 2006. Otherwise, the Georgian parliament would initiate the procedure of withdrawal from the Dagomys Agreement of 1992 on February 15, 2006, and require Russian peacekeepers' to withdraw.
On December 8, 2005 the Joint Control Commission held an emergency meeting following the increase of tensions in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. The commission analyzed the conflict and laid out measures to guarantee a peaceful Georgian-Ossetian settlement. Valery Kenyaikin, ambassador at large of the Russian Foreign Ministry and head of the Russian part of the commission, attended the meeting.
On February 15, 2006 the Georgian parliament adopted a statement envisaging cessation of the peacekeeping operation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. It qualified Russian action in the region as "armed intervention. "
On May 31, 2006 Russian troops of the Joint Peacekeeping Force in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone rotated troops through the Rok Tunnel, which was out of Georgian control. Tbilisi regarded the Russian move as an official challenge. Georgian authorities alleged that Russia was introducing a greater contingent under the guise of rotation.
On July 16, 2006 Georgian police followed by car the Joint Control Commission leaders then stopped and detained them. They were searched, and their belongings were confiscated for several hours. The commission meeting had to be postponed for a day and a night. On July 18, 2006 the Georgian parliament adopted a resolution on an immediate pullout of Russian peacekeepers from the country.
On September 27, 2006 Georgian secret services arrested four Russian military officers working in the GRVZ (Group of Russian Troops in South Caucasus) on espionage charges. According to a statement issued by Marat Kulakhmetov, the commander of the Joint Peacekeeping Force in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, which was carried by mass media, a Georgian task force attacked a vehicle of a North Ossetian peacekeeping battalion as it was leaving the village of Avnevi on September 29, 2006. Sergeant Kudziyev, who was in the vehicle, was beaten.
On November 12, 2006 a referendum on independence was held in South Ossetia alongside the presidential elections. On August 7 Georgia accused Russia of an air attack, claiming two Su-25 jets with Russian markings intruded into Georgian airspace and fired missiles at a radar station near Gori. The incident prompted the cancellation of a Tbilisi meeting of the Joint Control Commission for Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Resolution (JCC) slated for August 9-10. Tensions surged in the conflict zone.
On August 29 Georgian authorities arrested and convicted two servicemen from the North-Ossetian peacekeeping battalion, Tariel Khachirov and Vitaly Valiyev. They were detained in a Georgian prison until February 2008, in violation of international law and the existing agreements on resolution of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. Neither representatives of the Joint Peacekeeping Force command nor officials from the Russian Embassy in Tbilisi were allowed to see them; they were also denied the right to use defense attorneys at court hearings. The resumption of the negotiating process by the Joint Control Commission for Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Resolution (JCC) after a twelve-month break did not bring any progress. Georgia and South Ossetia failed to adjust their positions and adopt a joint statement during the talks held on October 23-24, 2007 at the OSCE premises in Tbilisi.
On March 31, 2008 a South Ossetian police post near the village of Okona in the Znaur District was attacked by a group armed with guns and grenade launchers. Military observers from the Joint Peacekeeping Force and the OSCE mission established that the shots were fired from an area controlled by Georgia. Two days before the shooting, Georgian police task force and security officers dressed as civilians had been seen in the vicinity.
On April 2 another armed group fired automatic weapons at a South Ossetian Defense Ministry checkpoint near the village of Andzi-si. The servicemen at the checkpoint did not return fire. A total of 56 incidents of ceasefire violation by Georgian forces were registered by the Joint Peacekeeping Force in April 2008. Most of them involved random shooting with the purpose of fueling tension in the region. Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili, commenting on the explosion of an anti-personnel mine that injured a local police officer near the village of Kheiti, accused Russian peacekeepers of planting the mine. Later he spoke on Georgia's Alania TV Channel accusing the South Ossetian government of issuing 1,500 fake Russian passports to local residents.
On May 14 President of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity said the Georgian special services were planning a terrorist attack in the territory of the self-proclaimed republic against Georgians and Georgian peacekeepers.
On May 15 Captain Vladimir Ivanov, an aide to the Joint Peacekeeping Force commander for contacts with the media, announced a planned rotation of the peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia. Georgian media then spread information about an alleged expansion of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in the conflict zone, quoting Georgia's foreign minister. A routine rotation was described as a "provocation" and a "reckless enterprise."
On May 16 a bomb exploded on a roadside 200 meters from the Georgian village of Ergneti in the conflict zone. No one was hurt. Another bomb was detonated on the road between the Georgian villages of Eredvi and Ditsi. A Georgian Interior Ministry car was hit, injuring one Georgian special task force officer. A third explosion occurred on the same day in the vicinity of the village of Nikozi, where a local resident was injured by a mine in a field.
On July 3 as Dmitry Sanakoyev, head of the ‘alternative' Georgian-backed government of South Ossetia, was driving across the republic to Batumi to attend an international conference, his car was struck by a mine and fired at from the direction of local villages. Sanakoyev's bodyguards returned fire. The shooting went on for several minutes. Three of the guards were severely injured. Sanakoyev himself was unscathed. South Ossetian Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzayev said that the attack on Sanakoyev was orchestrated by Georgia to provide a pretext for invading the self-proclaimed republic.
In the early hours of July 4, 2008 Georgian forces used mortars, grenade launchers and guns to fire at Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, and the villages of Ubiat and Dmenis. One person was killed and three wounded. Georgian officials claimed that South Ossetia started the shooting and Georgia was forced to fire back in self-defense.
On July 7 the police in Russia's Southern Federal District detained four military men from the Georgian Defense Ministry in the village of Okon, South Ossetia's Znaur District. Officials of the breakaway region of South Ossetia claimed the detained men were pursuing intelligence activities in the Tskhinvali region. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili considered the detainment a hostage situation.
On July 8, the detainees were released.
On July 9, Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement concerning the aggravated situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflict zones, which said that "For the past several days, the situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zones has intensified. The city of Tskhinvali has been shelled by the Georgian army, with victims registered among civilians. Fighters and unmanned aircraft of the Georgian Air Force have repeatedly violated the conflict territorial air zones.
In a terrorist attack, a South Ossetian police officer was killed. Georgian military set up a post at a strategic site near the village of Sarabuki. Additional military equipment was moved from Georgia into the conflict zone without any coordination with the Joint Peacekeeping Forces, which was registered by military observers including by the OSCE mission in Georgia. These actions point to an open and planned aggression against South Ossetia, which is the internationally recognized side in settling the conflict."
On August 1 and 2, the tension in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zone was aggravated due to a massive shelling of Tskhinvali's residential districts, which led to numerous deaths among civilians, with six South Ossetians killed and 15 wounded. Georgia claimed this was a response to South Ossetia's gunfire on Georgia's territory. South Ossetia began evacuating the region's residents to North Ossetia, with 2,500 people leaving their homes during the two days after the shelling.
On August 6, South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity said he would take "the toughest measures" toward "militants firing at the villages." Previously, the breakaway region's Defense Ministry reported that the Georgian side started sniper fire at the South Ossetian villages of Mugut and Didmukha in the Znaur District at around 12:00 p.m. According to South Ossetian sources, the Georgian special forces attempted to occupy Nul Height to gain control over the Znaur road and the South Ossetian villages located along the road.
In the afternoon, it was reported that an aggressive battle was taking place at the village of Nul. Irina Gagloyeva, head of South Ossetia's Committee for Information and the Press, told RIA Novosti that South Ossetian units had forced the Georgian military units out of Nul Height. Georgia's Interior Ministry, however, denied the reports. The same day, the special envoy of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Yury Popov, said direct Georgian-South Ossetian talks with Russian mediators were offered in the Joint Peacekeeping Forces' headquarters for August 7. However, Tskhinvali refused the offer.
On August 7 Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in his national TV address to Georgia and to the Tskhinvali region, said he was ready for any negotiations to settle the conflict with South Ossetia. He suggested Russia become a guarantor of South Ossetia's autonomy within Georgia. According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours. According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first. Also, there were reports that Russian peacekeepers were fired on.
On August 8 Georgia started military operations in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. __._,_.___ ,
In Soviet times South Ossetia was an autonomous area within Georgia.
In 1991 Georgia's first president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, abolished the autonomy. The South Ossetian authorities rejected that decision and put up an armed resistance to the Georgians. In January 1991 open warfare broke out between Georgia and South Ossetia claiming heavy casualties on both sides. After the armed conflict, which lasted until 1992, Georgia lost control over the territory and peacekeeping forces were introduced into the conflict zone.
In 1994 talks to settle the conflict began. On May 16, 1996 a memorandum on security and confidence measures between the sides was signed in Moscow. The Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze and South Ossetian President Lyudvig Chibirov had several meetings to discuss ways to end the conflict. Russia was the mediator in the negotiation process.
On December 23, 2000 a Russian-Georgian intergovernmental agreement was signed on interaction and economic reconstruction in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone and on the return of refugees.
In April 2001 a referendum in South Ossetia introduced changes in the republic's constitution. Georgia considers the referendum to be illegal.
On December 22, 2001 the OSCE mission in Georgia and the European Commission signed an agreement on a 210,000 euro grant for measures to settle the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. The European Commission took an active part in collecting and destroying weapons in the conflict zone. The 10th meeting of the parties' official delegations took place as part of the negotiations to settle the Georgian-Ossetian conflict outside The Hague on October 14-17, 2003. Taking part in the consultations were the representatives of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the Dutch co-chairs of the OSCE, the head of the OSCE mission to Georgia and the representatives of the European Commission. For the first time the parties failed to sign a final protocol due to substantive differences over its content.
On May 31, 2004 the commander of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, Svyatoslav Nabdzorov, declared the intention to liquidate the checkpoints the Georgian Interior Ministry had set up along the Gori-Tskhinvali highway ostensibly to stop the transportation of smuggled goods.
On June 1, 2004 the Russian Foreign Ministry made three statements on the situation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. The Russian ministry called on the Georgian authorities to recognize the danger of provocations in the region.
On June 2, 2004, during a meeting of the co-chairmen of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict the Georgian and Ossetian representatives agreed not to use force or economic pressure with regard to each other.
On June 3, 2004 Georgia sent 20 flatcars with tanks and armored vehicles, several Grad rockets and 350 peacekeepers to the Tskhinvali area. Georgia had 150 troops armed with small arms near Tskhinvali. All in all, Georgia can have 500 servicemen with limited quantities of armor in the conflict zone, the country's Defense Ministry said.
On June 28, 2004 three members of the Georgian Security Ministry were detained on suspicion of committing acts of sabotage and terrorism in South Ossetia. Following the incident Georgia refused to attend the meeting of the Joint Control Commission due to be held in Moscow on June 30.
On July 3 the representatives of the Georgian special services were released. Georgia declared that it would continue working with the commission.
On June 30, 2004 Russian peacekeepers were attacked by a Georgian Interior Ministry unit. The Russian Foreign Ministry called on Tbilisi "not to bring the situation in South Ossetia to a danger point." Moscow "has no doubt that the forcible seizure of military property was deliberately aimed at further aggravating the situation in South Ossetia and undermining the Russian-Georgian relations," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. The situation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone took a turn for the worse when an armed clash occurred in the Liakhvi Gorge in South Ossetia. Tbilisi reported that two Georgian peacekeepers were wounded and one kidnapped.
On July 8-9 talks were held in Tskhinvali between Georgian Minister of State Giorgi Khaindrava and Deputy Commander of the Russian Ground Forces Lieutenant General Valery Yevnevich on the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. The two sides discussed measures to stabilize the situation around South Ossetia.
On July 11 a meeting took place in Tskhinvali between the head of the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity and the Russian Foreign Ministry's Special Ambassador Lev Mironov to discuss the preparation and holding of the meeting of the Joint Control Commission (JCC) on the settlement of the situation in South Ossetia. On the same day a working meeting took place in Tskhinvali between the co-chairmen of the JCC with the participation of the South Ossetian Special Ambassador Boris Chochiyev and a representative of the North Ossetian government, Teimuraz Kusov. The parties agreed to stop all provocative actions in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. The conflicting parties pledged to stop the shooting and to lift the economic blockade.
On July 14, 2004 the first round of closed high-level talks in the JCC format was held in Moscow. The parties agreed that illegal armed units had to be withdrawn from the conflict zone. They confirmed the status of the peacekeepers in the conflict zone. The chairman of the Georgian National Security Council, Gela Bezhuashvili, said that the solution of the South Ossetian problem lay in the restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity.
On July 15, during the second round of the talks, the members of the JCC meeting signed a final document calling on the leaders of Tbilisi and Tskhinvali not to use force to resolve the conflict. The parties had to honor all the previous agreements. All the illegal armed units were to be disarmed and military vehicles had to be withdrawn from the conflict zone. A separate point in the protocol was devoted to humanitarian aid: the parties reaffirmed that such cargoes were to enjoy a favorable customs regime, as prescribed by the 1992 Dagomys agreements. The sides agreed that the JCC would be a permanent body based in Tskhinvali and that the following meeting would take place in Tbilisi several days later.
At a meeting in Tskhinvali on July 19, 2004 the representatives of Georgia, South Ossetia, North Ossetia and Russia agreed to set up a group of secretaries of the Georgian, South and North Ossetian parts of the JCC; and on July 21, the group and the counselor at the Russian Embassy in Georgia held their first meeting in Tbilisi. Georgia and South Ossetia reaffirmed their commitment to a peaceful settlement in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and to preventing an escalation of tensions. A meeting of the representatives of co-chairs of the JCC in Tskhinvali on July 22 set the deadlines for the start of joint patrolling of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone by peacekeepers and OSCE observers and the routes of the patrols.
On September 30-October 2, 2004 a Joint Control Commission (JCC) meeting in Moscow discussed the prospects of resolving the conflict situation in South Ossetia, preventing future crises and economic rehabilitation of the conflict zone. A working group was set up to prepare decisions on the withdrawal of illegal units, dismantling of illegal checkpoints and the setting up of new checkpoints by peacekeepers.
On November 5, 2004 talks were held in Sochi between Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania and the head of South Ossetia, Eduard Kokoity. They were mediated by the Russian Foreign Ministry represented by First Deputy Foreign Minister Valery Loshchinin. The parties agreed on full demilitarization of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. On November 13 Georgian Minister of State Giorgi Khaindrava and Special Affairs Minister of the Government of South Ossetia Boris Chochiyev agreed to liquidate the dugouts and other military structures.
On November 15 the liquidation of military engineering structures began in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone.
On November 18-19, 2004 a meeting of the JCC in Vladikavkaz reviewed progress in the fulfillment of the Russian-brokered agreements between Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania and the president of the unrecognized Republic of South Ossetia, Eduard Kokoity, reached in Sochi on November 5. President of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania Alexander Dzasokhov, speaking at the JCC meeting, backed the proposal made by Zhvania and Kokoity to form a special economic zone that would include the Alagir District of North Ossetia, South Ossetia and the Gori District of Georgia.
On January 2005 Mikheil Saakashvili announced peace initiatives with regard to South Ossetia at a PACE meeting in Strasbourg. South Ossetia was offered broad autonomy as part of the single Georgian state. President George W. Bush in a telephone conversation on February 15 backed Saakashvili' s initiatives. South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity, commenting on Saakashvili' s initiatives, said that "South Ossetia has long been an independent republic" and there could be no question of creating a common state with Georgia.
On March 11, 2005 Mikheil Saakashvili told a briefing that he would not wait long for Tskhinvali's response to his initiatives on the status of South Ossetia. He noted that some representatives of the Tskhinvali authorities welcomed the Georgian initiatives, but were unable to make a decision. He said the Tskhinvali region and Abkhazia would "never become part of an empire, even of a former empire." "These are our people, our territory called Georgia and it will never be called anything else," Saakashvili said.
On March 16-17, 2005 a meeting of the co-chairs of the Joint Control Commission discussed demilitarization of the conflict zone in the framework of the November 2004 Sochi agreements. Taking part in the meeting were the delegations of Russia, Georgia, North Ossetia-Alania and South Ossetia.
On June 20-21, 2005 an emergency meeting of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict was held in Moscow. The sides were supposed to sign a protocol on the cooperation of the law-enforcement bodies in the conflict zone. However, the protocol signed envisaged only the creation of a group to investigate the incidents in the conflict zone on May 29 and June 6 (the murder of four Ossetian and one Georgian servicemen and the disappearance of four Georgians).
On July 10, 2005 an international conference on the settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict was held in Batumi. The representatives of South Ossetia boycotted the conference. During the conference Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili declared that Georgia was ready to grant South Ossetia full autonomy and amend the country's Constitution accordingly. He said that his plan of settlement of the conflict with South Ossetia was a phased one and would take considerable time to implement. He said the plan took into account all the wishes expressed at various stages by the South Ossetian representatives. The unrecognized republic of South Ossetia rejected Saakashvili' s offer of autonomy within Georgia.
On October 11, 2005 the Georgian parliament adopted a resolution "On Peacekeeping Operations and the Situation in the Conflict Zones of Georgia." It required Russian peacekeepers, stationed in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, to enforce both parties' compliance with their agreements before February 1, 2006. Otherwise, the Georgian parliament would initiate the procedure of withdrawal from the Dagomys Agreement of 1992 on February 15, 2006, and require Russian peacekeepers' to withdraw.
On December 8, 2005 the Joint Control Commission held an emergency meeting following the increase of tensions in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. The commission analyzed the conflict and laid out measures to guarantee a peaceful Georgian-Ossetian settlement. Valery Kenyaikin, ambassador at large of the Russian Foreign Ministry and head of the Russian part of the commission, attended the meeting.
On February 15, 2006 the Georgian parliament adopted a statement envisaging cessation of the peacekeeping operation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. It qualified Russian action in the region as "armed intervention. "
On May 31, 2006 Russian troops of the Joint Peacekeeping Force in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone rotated troops through the Rok Tunnel, which was out of Georgian control. Tbilisi regarded the Russian move as an official challenge. Georgian authorities alleged that Russia was introducing a greater contingent under the guise of rotation.
On July 16, 2006 Georgian police followed by car the Joint Control Commission leaders then stopped and detained them. They were searched, and their belongings were confiscated for several hours. The commission meeting had to be postponed for a day and a night. On July 18, 2006 the Georgian parliament adopted a resolution on an immediate pullout of Russian peacekeepers from the country.
On September 27, 2006 Georgian secret services arrested four Russian military officers working in the GRVZ (Group of Russian Troops in South Caucasus) on espionage charges. According to a statement issued by Marat Kulakhmetov, the commander of the Joint Peacekeeping Force in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, which was carried by mass media, a Georgian task force attacked a vehicle of a North Ossetian peacekeeping battalion as it was leaving the village of Avnevi on September 29, 2006. Sergeant Kudziyev, who was in the vehicle, was beaten.
On November 12, 2006 a referendum on independence was held in South Ossetia alongside the presidential elections. On August 7 Georgia accused Russia of an air attack, claiming two Su-25 jets with Russian markings intruded into Georgian airspace and fired missiles at a radar station near Gori. The incident prompted the cancellation of a Tbilisi meeting of the Joint Control Commission for Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Resolution (JCC) slated for August 9-10. Tensions surged in the conflict zone.
On August 29 Georgian authorities arrested and convicted two servicemen from the North-Ossetian peacekeeping battalion, Tariel Khachirov and Vitaly Valiyev. They were detained in a Georgian prison until February 2008, in violation of international law and the existing agreements on resolution of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. Neither representatives of the Joint Peacekeeping Force command nor officials from the Russian Embassy in Tbilisi were allowed to see them; they were also denied the right to use defense attorneys at court hearings. The resumption of the negotiating process by the Joint Control Commission for Georgian-Ossetian Conflict Resolution (JCC) after a twelve-month break did not bring any progress. Georgia and South Ossetia failed to adjust their positions and adopt a joint statement during the talks held on October 23-24, 2007 at the OSCE premises in Tbilisi.
On March 31, 2008 a South Ossetian police post near the village of Okona in the Znaur District was attacked by a group armed with guns and grenade launchers. Military observers from the Joint Peacekeeping Force and the OSCE mission established that the shots were fired from an area controlled by Georgia. Two days before the shooting, Georgian police task force and security officers dressed as civilians had been seen in the vicinity.
On April 2 another armed group fired automatic weapons at a South Ossetian Defense Ministry checkpoint near the village of Andzi-si. The servicemen at the checkpoint did not return fire. A total of 56 incidents of ceasefire violation by Georgian forces were registered by the Joint Peacekeeping Force in April 2008. Most of them involved random shooting with the purpose of fueling tension in the region. Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili, commenting on the explosion of an anti-personnel mine that injured a local police officer near the village of Kheiti, accused Russian peacekeepers of planting the mine. Later he spoke on Georgia's Alania TV Channel accusing the South Ossetian government of issuing 1,500 fake Russian passports to local residents.
On May 14 President of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity said the Georgian special services were planning a terrorist attack in the territory of the self-proclaimed republic against Georgians and Georgian peacekeepers.
On May 15 Captain Vladimir Ivanov, an aide to the Joint Peacekeeping Force commander for contacts with the media, announced a planned rotation of the peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia. Georgian media then spread information about an alleged expansion of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in the conflict zone, quoting Georgia's foreign minister. A routine rotation was described as a "provocation" and a "reckless enterprise."
On May 16 a bomb exploded on a roadside 200 meters from the Georgian village of Ergneti in the conflict zone. No one was hurt. Another bomb was detonated on the road between the Georgian villages of Eredvi and Ditsi. A Georgian Interior Ministry car was hit, injuring one Georgian special task force officer. A third explosion occurred on the same day in the vicinity of the village of Nikozi, where a local resident was injured by a mine in a field.
On July 3 as Dmitry Sanakoyev, head of the ‘alternative' Georgian-backed government of South Ossetia, was driving across the republic to Batumi to attend an international conference, his car was struck by a mine and fired at from the direction of local villages. Sanakoyev's bodyguards returned fire. The shooting went on for several minutes. Three of the guards were severely injured. Sanakoyev himself was unscathed. South Ossetian Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzayev said that the attack on Sanakoyev was orchestrated by Georgia to provide a pretext for invading the self-proclaimed republic.
In the early hours of July 4, 2008 Georgian forces used mortars, grenade launchers and guns to fire at Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, and the villages of Ubiat and Dmenis. One person was killed and three wounded. Georgian officials claimed that South Ossetia started the shooting and Georgia was forced to fire back in self-defense.
On July 7 the police in Russia's Southern Federal District detained four military men from the Georgian Defense Ministry in the village of Okon, South Ossetia's Znaur District. Officials of the breakaway region of South Ossetia claimed the detained men were pursuing intelligence activities in the Tskhinvali region. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili considered the detainment a hostage situation.
On July 8, the detainees were released.
On July 9, Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement concerning the aggravated situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflict zones, which said that "For the past several days, the situation in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zones has intensified. The city of Tskhinvali has been shelled by the Georgian army, with victims registered among civilians. Fighters and unmanned aircraft of the Georgian Air Force have repeatedly violated the conflict territorial air zones.
In a terrorist attack, a South Ossetian police officer was killed. Georgian military set up a post at a strategic site near the village of Sarabuki. Additional military equipment was moved from Georgia into the conflict zone without any coordination with the Joint Peacekeeping Forces, which was registered by military observers including by the OSCE mission in Georgia. These actions point to an open and planned aggression against South Ossetia, which is the internationally recognized side in settling the conflict."
On August 1 and 2, the tension in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zone was aggravated due to a massive shelling of Tskhinvali's residential districts, which led to numerous deaths among civilians, with six South Ossetians killed and 15 wounded. Georgia claimed this was a response to South Ossetia's gunfire on Georgia's territory. South Ossetia began evacuating the region's residents to North Ossetia, with 2,500 people leaving their homes during the two days after the shelling.
On August 6, South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity said he would take "the toughest measures" toward "militants firing at the villages." Previously, the breakaway region's Defense Ministry reported that the Georgian side started sniper fire at the South Ossetian villages of Mugut and Didmukha in the Znaur District at around 12:00 p.m. According to South Ossetian sources, the Georgian special forces attempted to occupy Nul Height to gain control over the Znaur road and the South Ossetian villages located along the road.
In the afternoon, it was reported that an aggressive battle was taking place at the village of Nul. Irina Gagloyeva, head of South Ossetia's Committee for Information and the Press, told RIA Novosti that South Ossetian units had forced the Georgian military units out of Nul Height. Georgia's Interior Ministry, however, denied the reports. The same day, the special envoy of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Yury Popov, said direct Georgian-South Ossetian talks with Russian mediators were offered in the Joint Peacekeeping Forces' headquarters for August 7. However, Tskhinvali refused the offer.
On August 7 Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in his national TV address to Georgia and to the Tskhinvali region, said he was ready for any negotiations to settle the conflict with South Ossetia. He suggested Russia become a guarantor of South Ossetia's autonomy within Georgia. According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours. According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first. Also, there were reports that Russian peacekeepers were fired on.
On August 8 Georgia started military operations in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone. __._,_.___ ,
Last minute holiday anyone?
Well if taking your hols here, here or here is a bit risky why not go somewhere more exotic?
I like the comment by the Iraqi labourer
"There is less kidnapping and killing but the militiamen are still there though they are not armed in the streets"
Well they are hardly militiamen then arent they!! Our UK holiday makers as described by the Mail arent either!
Bring on the Class War.
I like the comment by the Iraqi labourer
"There is less kidnapping and killing but the militiamen are still there though they are not armed in the streets"
Well they are hardly militiamen then arent they!! Our UK holiday makers as described by the Mail arent either!
Bring on the Class War.
Einstein and Socialism
Nice article about Socialism from the Socialist Appeal site here.
Its always uplifting when you get a scientific genius to support your world view. Its quite rare to find a Capitalist genuis.
Milton Friedman? Do me a favour!!
Its always uplifting when you get a scientific genius to support your world view. Its quite rare to find a Capitalist genuis.
Milton Friedman? Do me a favour!!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Radiohead versus U2
So, the U2 Manager has had a dig at Radiohead. OK so I am a couple of months late for this bit of news but I had earlier commented about downloading music files and the hypocrisy of the 'poverty stricken' CD producers and some of their dick head artists.
As you already know, Radiohead are supposed to have stabbed the music industry in the back when they decided to release their last album In Rainbows free on the Internet to a huge gnashing of teeth from the Music Industry bosses. If you wanted to contribute a few pence well that was OK but obviously most fans didn’t want to shell out the extortionate amounts over the counter so this provided a valueable service. And why not? They have made shed loads of cash and will continue to do so regardless of what the corporate anti poverty campaigners U2 might say.
So it really stinks when the biggest bunch of hypocrites this side of Washington DC decide to have a dig at Radiohead for their generous service for their fans. If fans decide to steal something that is already free of charge anyway what the f*ck is the problem?
If U2 really want to do a benefit to society how about paying some f*cking tax!!!
Hey Guys get this. The real reason why your are pissed is because Radiohead have consistently released brilliant albums while you lot bring out outdated , embarrassing , turgid rubbish.
Get over it.
Why doesn’t Bono F*ck off and practice what he is meant to preach.
As you already know, Radiohead are supposed to have stabbed the music industry in the back when they decided to release their last album In Rainbows free on the Internet to a huge gnashing of teeth from the Music Industry bosses. If you wanted to contribute a few pence well that was OK but obviously most fans didn’t want to shell out the extortionate amounts over the counter so this provided a valueable service. And why not? They have made shed loads of cash and will continue to do so regardless of what the corporate anti poverty campaigners U2 might say.
So it really stinks when the biggest bunch of hypocrites this side of Washington DC decide to have a dig at Radiohead for their generous service for their fans. If fans decide to steal something that is already free of charge anyway what the f*ck is the problem?
If U2 really want to do a benefit to society how about paying some f*cking tax!!!
Hey Guys get this. The real reason why your are pissed is because Radiohead have consistently released brilliant albums while you lot bring out outdated , embarrassing , turgid rubbish.
Get over it.
Why doesn’t Bono F*ck off and practice what he is meant to preach.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Sunday, August 3, 2008
The Bosses support New Labour
A week after the Warwick NPF, the bosses have shown their gratitude to Brown and co 'slapping' the Unions into touch. It has elsewhere been blogged over how the policy discussions will not keep Labour in power in 2010. This report below cut and pasted from the FT shows why.
Who are New Labour trying to con? It certainly wont be the voters.
UK - Politics & policy
Business cheers Brown’s policy on unions
By Jean Eaglesham and Jim Pickard
Published: July 28 2008 22:19 Last updated: July 28 2008 23:28
Gordon Brown was on Monday praised by business for resisting “the worst” union demands on policy, but urged to stand his ground in the run-up to this autumn’s politically charged party conference season.
Business reacted with undisguised relief to the measures for Labour’s next manifesto hammered out at the party’s National Policy Forum over the weekend. Reports on Monday claimed the prime minister had “caved in” to the unions, which represent the sole funding lifeline for his cash-strapped party. But employers pointed out that the reality was somewhat different. Facing a list of 130 union demands, Mr Brown rejected the vast majority outright and gave little ground on the remainder.
“Everybody appears to have seen some sense and understood the current economic climate,” David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, told the Financial Times.
“The business community must be heartened by this.” Richard Lambert, director- general of the CBI employers’ body, said the government had “resisted the worst of the union demands”.
Employers said the document that emerged from the weekend talks between ministers, unions and Labour activists – a central plank of the party’s policy making machine – contained little to cause them alarm.
After stripping out union-friendly rhetoric and vague assurances, the document was notable principally for the lack of substantive new commitments. The main exception was the pledge to lower the age threshold for paying the adult rate of the national minimum wage from 22 to 21, subject to advice from the Low Pay Commission.
Working life
New commitments
• Minimum wage: Age threshold for the adult minimum wage to be lowered from 22 to 21, if that is again recommended by the low pay commission• More use of in-house services for hospital cleaning
Restatement of existing commitments
• Family friendly: Right to request flexible working extended to parents of children aged up to 16; measures to allow mothers to share paid parental leave with fathers• Equality bill: Requirement for private sector companies contracting with the public sector to provide more information on the proportion of women they employ• Redundancy pay: An increase in the statutory minimum• More apprenticeships, particularly in the public sector
Measures to be considered (no policy commitment)
• A promise to “look at” non-profit making companies acting as train operators• An inquiry into health and safety standards in the construction industry
“We’re pleased that this agreement appears to be mainly a rehash of existing policies,” the EEF manufacturers’ organisation said. Stephen Alambritis of the Federation of Small Businesses told the FT: “We’re keeping a beady eye on this [area] but there’s nothing earth-shatteringly new that would worry us in it.”
The relaxed business reaction was in stark contrast to a Tory briefing document that on Monday proclaimed the resurrection of a Labour party in hock to its historic paymasters. “The unions are regaining control of Labour’s agenda, demonstrating that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Brown’s government is lurching to the left in response,” the opposition party declared.
But the Tories’ citing of the “huge list” of union demands made before the policy forum served only to highlight how few of them were ceded. Rejected policies included the abolition of the ban on secondary picketing, the reopening of public sector pay deals and higher taxes for people earning more than £40,000.
“The unions went in with a shopping list and came away with a bag of sweets,” Bob Marshall-Andrews, the veteran Labour MP, commented wryly on Monday.
Employers are acutely aware that their relief at Mr Brown’s refusal to grant this wish list could prove short-lived, however. Most of the union demands will be revived at the annual Trades Union Congress this autumn. Many Labour MPs on the left of the party believe a radical, union-influenced agenda is the only way the party can avoid catastrophic defeat at the next election. The rejected union call for a windfall tax on energy companies, to take just one example, has been backed by 48 Labour MPs who have signed a parliamentary motion.
Business is keeping a wary watching brief. “All we can do is absolutely stiffen their [the government’s] resolve,” Miles Templeman, Institute of Directors director-general, told the FT.
“They’ve stressed how important pay restraint is – now they’ve got to stick to it. We just can’t afford a further movement in that direction [of union demands] or we’ll harm our competitiveness.”
Additional reporting by Andrew Taylor
So much for the Tories whingeing hysterically that the Labour Party was in the pocket of the Unions. while a debate rages about changing the leader, anyone standing would be taking on a poisoned chalice. The damage has already been done and we need radical policy change to take on the challenge of the economic period being entered. The debate must centre around the ideas of socialism and not the centre right policies which see Labour hemorrhaging support.
A final point,this interview here with Alan Sugar just about backs up the employer friendly view reported above. Interestingly Sugar points out at the very end of the report that there is no difference between the Tories and Labour politically.
The left have been saying that for ages.
Who are New Labour trying to con? It certainly wont be the voters.
UK - Politics & policy
Business cheers Brown’s policy on unions
By Jean Eaglesham and Jim Pickard
Published: July 28 2008 22:19 Last updated: July 28 2008 23:28
Gordon Brown was on Monday praised by business for resisting “the worst” union demands on policy, but urged to stand his ground in the run-up to this autumn’s politically charged party conference season.
Business reacted with undisguised relief to the measures for Labour’s next manifesto hammered out at the party’s National Policy Forum over the weekend. Reports on Monday claimed the prime minister had “caved in” to the unions, which represent the sole funding lifeline for his cash-strapped party. But employers pointed out that the reality was somewhat different. Facing a list of 130 union demands, Mr Brown rejected the vast majority outright and gave little ground on the remainder.
“Everybody appears to have seen some sense and understood the current economic climate,” David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, told the Financial Times.
“The business community must be heartened by this.” Richard Lambert, director- general of the CBI employers’ body, said the government had “resisted the worst of the union demands”.
Employers said the document that emerged from the weekend talks between ministers, unions and Labour activists – a central plank of the party’s policy making machine – contained little to cause them alarm.
After stripping out union-friendly rhetoric and vague assurances, the document was notable principally for the lack of substantive new commitments. The main exception was the pledge to lower the age threshold for paying the adult rate of the national minimum wage from 22 to 21, subject to advice from the Low Pay Commission.
Working life
New commitments
• Minimum wage: Age threshold for the adult minimum wage to be lowered from 22 to 21, if that is again recommended by the low pay commission• More use of in-house services for hospital cleaning
Restatement of existing commitments
• Family friendly: Right to request flexible working extended to parents of children aged up to 16; measures to allow mothers to share paid parental leave with fathers• Equality bill: Requirement for private sector companies contracting with the public sector to provide more information on the proportion of women they employ• Redundancy pay: An increase in the statutory minimum• More apprenticeships, particularly in the public sector
Measures to be considered (no policy commitment)
• A promise to “look at” non-profit making companies acting as train operators• An inquiry into health and safety standards in the construction industry
“We’re pleased that this agreement appears to be mainly a rehash of existing policies,” the EEF manufacturers’ organisation said. Stephen Alambritis of the Federation of Small Businesses told the FT: “We’re keeping a beady eye on this [area] but there’s nothing earth-shatteringly new that would worry us in it.”
The relaxed business reaction was in stark contrast to a Tory briefing document that on Monday proclaimed the resurrection of a Labour party in hock to its historic paymasters. “The unions are regaining control of Labour’s agenda, demonstrating that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Brown’s government is lurching to the left in response,” the opposition party declared.
But the Tories’ citing of the “huge list” of union demands made before the policy forum served only to highlight how few of them were ceded. Rejected policies included the abolition of the ban on secondary picketing, the reopening of public sector pay deals and higher taxes for people earning more than £40,000.
“The unions went in with a shopping list and came away with a bag of sweets,” Bob Marshall-Andrews, the veteran Labour MP, commented wryly on Monday.
Employers are acutely aware that their relief at Mr Brown’s refusal to grant this wish list could prove short-lived, however. Most of the union demands will be revived at the annual Trades Union Congress this autumn. Many Labour MPs on the left of the party believe a radical, union-influenced agenda is the only way the party can avoid catastrophic defeat at the next election. The rejected union call for a windfall tax on energy companies, to take just one example, has been backed by 48 Labour MPs who have signed a parliamentary motion.
Business is keeping a wary watching brief. “All we can do is absolutely stiffen their [the government’s] resolve,” Miles Templeman, Institute of Directors director-general, told the FT.
“They’ve stressed how important pay restraint is – now they’ve got to stick to it. We just can’t afford a further movement in that direction [of union demands] or we’ll harm our competitiveness.”
Additional reporting by Andrew Taylor
So much for the Tories whingeing hysterically that the Labour Party was in the pocket of the Unions. while a debate rages about changing the leader, anyone standing would be taking on a poisoned chalice. The damage has already been done and we need radical policy change to take on the challenge of the economic period being entered. The debate must centre around the ideas of socialism and not the centre right policies which see Labour hemorrhaging support.
A final point,this interview here with Alan Sugar just about backs up the employer friendly view reported above. Interestingly Sugar points out at the very end of the report that there is no difference between the Tories and Labour politically.
The left have been saying that for ages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![](<a href="http://www.tigmoo.co.uk"><img style="border: 0px solid ; width: 200px; height: 60px;" alt="tigmoo.co.uk - all the union news that's fit to blog" src="http://www.tigmoo.co.uk/img/tigmoo200black.jpg"></a>)
